Bauexperte
2011-06-21 10:55:35
- #1
17.06.2011 |
The CJEU has strengthened the rights of buyers who have purchased defective goods and, for example, installed them in their own homes. The seller must therefore also bear the costs for the removal of the defective item and the installation of a replacement item.
CJEU significantly strengthens buyers' rights
Background
A builder and a dealer are disputing over the reimbursement of removal costs for tiles.
The builder had purchased floor tiles for 1,400 euros. After installing some of the tiles in his house, he noticed that there were shading marks on the surface which were visible to the naked eye. An expert determined that these shading marks could not be removed and that the tiles had to be completely replaced to remedy the defect. He estimated the costs for this at 5,800 euros. The dealer refuses to cover these costs.
The German Federal Court of Justice referred the question to the European Court of Justice as to whether European law implies that the seller of a defective item must also bear the costs for the removal of the defective item and the installation of the replacement item.
Decision
The dealer must also cover the costs for removal and reinstallation.
A fundamental part of EU consumer protection is that the restoration of the contractually agreed condition by the seller is free of charge for the consumer. If the consumer could not demand in the case of a replacement delivery that the seller bear the costs for the removal of the defective item and the installation of the new defect-free item, this would lead to a financial burden on the buyer that would not exist if the seller had properly fulfilled the sales contract. If the seller had delivered conforming goods from the start, the consumer would have only borne the installation costs once and would not have had to cover any costs for the removal of defective goods.
This also applies if the seller is not at fault for the defect. By delivering defective goods, the seller has breached a contractual obligation and must bear the consequences. The buyer cannot be blamed if he installed the goods according to their intended use in the trust that they were in order.
If neither contracting party has acted negligently, it is therefore justified to impose on the seller the costs for the removal of the non-conforming goods and the installation of the replacement goods delivered. The seller must bear these costs regardless of whether he was obligated under the purchase contract to install the delivered goods.
Even if a replacement delivery is the only way to remedy the defect, the seller cannot refuse it on the grounds that the costs for the removal of the defective goods and the installation of the defect-free goods are disproportionately high. If these costs are disproportionately high in an individual case, however, a reduction of the claim for replacement may be considered. In such a case, the buyer must have the option of either reducing the purchase price accordingly or rescinding the contract instead of a replacement delivery.
(CJEU, Judgment of 16.6.2011, C-65/09)
Source: Haufe online
The CJEU has strengthened the rights of buyers who have purchased defective goods and, for example, installed them in their own homes. The seller must therefore also bear the costs for the removal of the defective item and the installation of a replacement item.
CJEU significantly strengthens buyers' rights
Background
A builder and a dealer are disputing over the reimbursement of removal costs for tiles.
The builder had purchased floor tiles for 1,400 euros. After installing some of the tiles in his house, he noticed that there were shading marks on the surface which were visible to the naked eye. An expert determined that these shading marks could not be removed and that the tiles had to be completely replaced to remedy the defect. He estimated the costs for this at 5,800 euros. The dealer refuses to cover these costs.
The German Federal Court of Justice referred the question to the European Court of Justice as to whether European law implies that the seller of a defective item must also bear the costs for the removal of the defective item and the installation of the replacement item.
Decision
The dealer must also cover the costs for removal and reinstallation.
A fundamental part of EU consumer protection is that the restoration of the contractually agreed condition by the seller is free of charge for the consumer. If the consumer could not demand in the case of a replacement delivery that the seller bear the costs for the removal of the defective item and the installation of the new defect-free item, this would lead to a financial burden on the buyer that would not exist if the seller had properly fulfilled the sales contract. If the seller had delivered conforming goods from the start, the consumer would have only borne the installation costs once and would not have had to cover any costs for the removal of defective goods.
This also applies if the seller is not at fault for the defect. By delivering defective goods, the seller has breached a contractual obligation and must bear the consequences. The buyer cannot be blamed if he installed the goods according to their intended use in the trust that they were in order.
If neither contracting party has acted negligently, it is therefore justified to impose on the seller the costs for the removal of the non-conforming goods and the installation of the replacement goods delivered. The seller must bear these costs regardless of whether he was obligated under the purchase contract to install the delivered goods.
Even if a replacement delivery is the only way to remedy the defect, the seller cannot refuse it on the grounds that the costs for the removal of the defective goods and the installation of the defect-free goods are disproportionately high. If these costs are disproportionately high in an individual case, however, a reduction of the claim for replacement may be considered. In such a case, the buyer must have the option of either reducing the purchase price accordingly or rescinding the contract instead of a replacement delivery.
(CJEU, Judgment of 16.6.2011, C-65/09)
Source: Haufe online